Supreme Court refuses ex-parte suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, issues notice on SIR plea
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK New Delhi, October 5: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking the…
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
New Delhi, October 5: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, saying it would first seek responses from the Election Commission of India and other respondents on allegations that several decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) were taken unilaterally.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice to the Union of India, the Election Commission of India, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg IAS and DG (IT) Seema Khanna.
Petitioner Seeks Interim Suspension of CEC
The petition was filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh following a report by The Indian Express alleging that 14 crucial decisions relating to the SIR were taken in the name of the ECI by the CEC despite objections recorded by the other two Election Commissioners.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the Court should pass interim measures while the challenge to the appointment process under the CEC law remains pending before a larger bench.
Singh submitted that the issue concerned citizens’ voting rights and argued that urgent intervention was necessary.
He referred to Section 18 of the CEC Act, which provides that decisions of the Election Commission should, as far as possible, be unanimous and, where unanimity is not possible, should be decided by majority.
He also referred to Section 16, which provides legal protection to the CEC for acts done in the discharge of official duties, and argued that such protection was not available to Supreme Court judges.
‘Otherwise, the Country Will Burn’
Pressing for immediate interim relief, Singh argued that the alleged unilateral functioning of the CEC could undermine the electoral process.
“We are dealing with a grave situation which can undermine the very basis of our democracy,” Singh submitted.
When the bench indicated that it first needed to determine whether there had been any violation, Singh urged the Court to intervene immediately.
“The Court has to pass some interim orders, otherwise the country will burn,” he said.
The bench, however, pointed out that suspending the CEC could affect the functioning of the Election Commission.
“Who will conduct the elections?” the bench asked.
Singh suggested that the other two Election Commissioners could discharge the functions.
Supreme Court Questions Ex-Parte Relief
The bench indicated that it wanted to hear the respondents before passing any order.
Singh then suggested that the Court could direct the ECI to take decisions only unanimously or by majority.
The CJI observed that the statutory requirement was already mandatory.
“There is a mandatory law, and we expect them to follow it. If there is any violation, we will undo,” the CJI said.
Singh, however, argued that the Court could not subsequently undo an election or an elected government if the electoral roll itself had been vitiated.
Justice Bagchi questioned whether the Court could pass such an order ex-parte without hearing the respondents.
“If records show some decision was not unanimous etc., we will injunct those decisions and say they are ultra-vires. Can we ex-parte come to decision that all decisions were unilateral? We expect them to respond in a clear, transparent manner,” Justice Bagchi said.
Court Says Newspaper Reports Alone Cannot Form Basis for Order
Singh argued that an ECI press release itself amounted to an admission of the reports concerning the alleged unilateral decisions.
CJI Surya Kant, however, observed that the Court could not pass an order solely on the basis of newspaper reports.
The bench ultimately issued notice on the petition.
The Court also issued notice on a connected petition filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who has sought similar reliefs. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy appeared in the connected matter.
Petitions Challenge Alleged Unilateral SIR Decisions
The petitions have been filed in the backdrop of reports alleging that around 14 decisions concerning the SIR were taken by Gyanesh Kumar in the name of the ECI despite objections raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
According to the petitions, the two Election Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning various SIR-related steps.
Rakesh Kumar Singh’s petition seeks, among other reliefs, a declaration that decisions of the ECI, being a multi-member constitutional body, cannot be taken unilaterally.
The petitioner has also sought examination of the Commission’s primary records to determine whether the disputed actions were undertaken in accordance with the constitutional and statutory framework. As an interim measure, the petition seeks suspension of Gyanesh Kumar as CEC.
Connected Plea Seeks Judicial Inquiry
The connected petition filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeks quashing of the 14 decisions allegedly taken unilaterally.
It also seeks constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission/Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, with assistance from cybersecurity and IT experts.
The proposed inquiry would conduct a forensic audit of the ECINet and ERONet databases and investigate allegations concerning the deletion of electoral-roll entries during the SIR exercise.
The petitioner has also sought directions to the competent authority to register complaints and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, against Gyanesh Kumar, Maneesh Garg, Seema Khanna and other officials allegedly responsible for breaches of official duty.
Section 32 deals with punishment for specified breaches of official duty in connection with the preparation, revision or correction of electoral rolls.
The petition further alleges unauthorised modification of Form 6, centralisation of electoral-roll databases, failure to restore eligible voters through the ECINet system and the filing of appeals in West Bengal challenging the inclusion of voters purportedly in the name of the ECI.
The Supreme Court’s decision to issue notice means the respondents will now have an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the Court considers the substantive reliefs sought in the petitions.
